Larry, to me the question is not how much was spent, but rather, was money wasted. When we voted on the original MAPS, we voted on three things: how large the tax would be, how long the tax would run and what projects would be built. To me, completing the projects was more important than the length of time the tax runs or how much was spent, as long as there wasn't graft or money wasted. I voted to extend the orginal MAPS. Obviously if there was graft or waste we might never find out, or we might found out after the fact. But the fact that projects cost more than anticipated doesn't necessarily mean there was waste. Having built three different houses, I know that many factors can lead to increases in costs, and not all of them are anyone's fault.

The reason you may not have a lot of success getting people angry about cost overruns is because we have no data showing there was waste and at least I, and I suspect others, are more interested in what is done than whether it costs more than originally anticipated. If you come up with evidence showing there was waste or graft, you'll get more attention.

Guess that means you don't remember the reporting of MAPS wasteful spending and "graft"? Granted no one ended up in jail and in comparison to the County Jail debacle (where some folks probably should have been put into the same jail) ...

When you built the 2nd house, did you learn anything from building the 1st? Did you budget for those types of things in #2? Same with house #3, did you incorporate the lessons learned form #1 & #2 or did you just keep signing checks?

Of course there can be legitimate reasons for price increases but this wasn't the first time the folks down at City Hall had ever built anything or remodeled anything. You plan and budget for those types of things. You factor in inflation. You include the environmental impact reports, the A&E reports, associated cost and fees, the landscaping etc etc. According to the departing City Manager those types of things weren't included in the "before" costs but did become part of the "after" (to low ball the cost sold to voters so the measure would pass). Denied by former Mayor Norick. Here's what Bown had to say:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19980108/ai_n10117437/

Bown leaves post reflecting on successes, failures (Journal Record, Jan 8, 1998)

Retiring city manager, Don Bown

The city oversold MAPS to the citizens, Bown said, and should have informed citizens of the time-consuming infrastructure and environmental work that would take place before the projects took shape. "We talked about the glitzy things," Bown said. "We didn't talk about all these millions of dollars that was going to be spent long before we got to do any other stuff." The early budget numbers for the program were unrealistic, Bown said. "I can talk about this because I was one of the seven old white guys that met to discuss what MAPS was going to be and how it was going to be done and how much money we were going to have to do it," Bown said. "Many of those decisions were political decisions having nothing to do with what we wanted to build, but what you could sell to the public."

No, I don't remember wasteful spending and graft articles, but if you've got them I'll read them. The article you quoted above doesn't change my thinking, because it sounds as if the infrastructure and environmental work was necessary. Again, I voted for the end result, not the process. I'm delighted with what we got with MAPS, and I don't miss the tax money that paid for it. If the process was more expensive for reasons that were necessary, I'm fine with that. I understand that vision doesn't always come with a blueprint beforehand. That's simply the way I look at it. If it's different from the way you do, then that's why we vote differently.

Never mind

I doubt Larry has ever been involved in any large construction project, let alone multiple projects that occurred over a long period of time and involved not only new construction but demolition and retrofit. Cost changes occur all the time as materials prices change, new information is obtained (as built drawings don't always exist and aren't always accurate), etc., etc., etc. To imply that there was purposeful waste and/or graft without having any provable facts, just heresay, is irresponsible or guided by a different agenda. If anything, the city got a real bargain. Most new areanas around that time and since have been built for 3 or 4 times the money. The ballpark was a bargain then and would be multiple times more expensive now. The civic center was almost a miracle that it could be gutted and built like it is at all.

On top of that, the private money that was incited by the Maps investment was WAY more than projected, making Maps an incredible public investment.

Some people need to live and work in the real world.

Rover,

Betts brought up the "waste and graft" aspect. I hadn't brought it up before because I don't have the articles in front of me but I definitely remember reading about it at the time.

I have never disputed that legitimate cost increases occur. But this was NOT the City's "first rodeo". They had done projects spread out over many years involving "new construction ... demolition and retrofit" before (primarily paid with bond issues). Only thing really different with MAPS was the revenue was collected gradually thru the sales tax rather than gradually thru the sale of bonds.

The point is, you budget and plan for those things. Did you read what the retiring City Manger said? The City didn't include costs they KNEW were going to happen just so they could have a lower number to help get voter approval.

I was encouraged by what the Mayor said leading up to the MAPS 3 announcment:


"We are very mindful of doing everything we can to make sure we have enough money to do the projects at the level that the people are going to expect.”

This goes back to the earlier discussion about low/high expectations but I digress...

However, the City readily admits, that on average projects exceed estimates by 8%. And the City knows that with MAPS, cost exceed what voters were told by 48%. Why would they only allow 2.2% for cost over runs in MAPS 3???

They are only allowing $17M for "contingency" out of the $777M that is expected to be raised during the 7 years and 9 months of the tax.

At the bare minimum they need to be budgeting 8% ($62M) and if MAPS history repeats itself, then they need to budget 48% ($372.9M)

Getting back to the subject of the thread and the $40M "mistake" made on the Trails, we don't even half half of the money needed to make up for it in the entire MAPS 3 contingency fund. We are 3.5 months into MAPS 3 and this is the way they start out? Not talking about escalating construction costs or some unknown 7 years down the road here. This is the beginning of the process and does not bode well.

I can guarantee you that if I were to make a mistake that cost my employer $40M to correct, I would no longer be employed. Would you?

Rover,

Betts brought up the "waste and graft" aspect. I hadn't brought it up before because I don't have the articles in front of me but I definitely remember reading about it at the time.

I have never disputed that legitimate cost increases occur. But this was NOT the City's "first rodeo". They had done projects spread out over many years involving "new construction ... demolition and retrofit" before (primarily paid with bond issues). Only thing really different with MAPS was the revenue was collected gradually thru the sales tax rather than gradually thru the sale of bonds.

The point is, you budget and plan for those things. Did you read what the retiring City Manger said? The City didn't include costs they KNEW were going to happen just so they could have a lower number to help get voter approval.

I was encouraged by what the Mayor said leading up to the MAPS 3 announcment:


This goes back to the earlier discussion about low/high expectations but I digress...

However, the City readily admits, that on average projects exceed estimates by 8%. And the City knows that with MAPS, cost exceed what voters were told by 48%. Why would they only allow 2.2% for cost over runs in MAPS 3???

They are only allowing $17M for "contingency" out of the $777M that is expected to be raised during the 7 years and 9 months of the tax.

At the bare minimum they need to be budgeting 8% ($62M) and if MAPS history repeats itself, then they need to budget 48% ($372.9M)

Getting back to the subject of the thread and the $40M "mistake" made on the Trails, we don't even half half of the money needed to make up for it in the entire MAPS 3 contingency fund. We are 3.5 months into MAPS 3 and this is the way they start out? Not talking about escalating construction costs or some unknown 7 years down the road here. This is the beginning of the process and does not bode well.

I can guarantee you that if I were to make a mistake that cost my employer $40M to correct, I would no longer be employed. Would you?

Your comment about getting fired is ironic in that I believe that the accepted bid on the arena actually came in substantially under projection due to the fact that a large part of the cost was left out of the bid by the contractor - who to their credit honored the bid (and later fired the estimator).

I work in the construction industry worldwide and I can tell you that even the BEST private firms around the world regularly have costs overruns that are sometimes substantial. A couple of years ago when copper doubled in a matter of a couple of months EVERYONE had overruns. Steel prices followed. Cheap money and worldwide demand of construction materials created inflationary prices on materials.

How about giving them credit also when prices go down...like they have in the last two years. If you are going to criticize and accuse about unexpected increases, then praise for unexpected savings...otherwise it is just hypocritical sniping.

Like with everything, simplistic answers and criticism is easy for those who have no in depth knowledge of situations and who have incomplete facts. That is the mark of today's society in that simple deductions are made of partial facts and little personal knowledge...and then thrown out in public for all those who have even less knowledge and facts to accept as truth.

Larry, it's obvious from the posts on this thread that some of the posters couldn't care less what methods are used to accomplish something as long as they like the end product. It's amazing how jaded some have become and accept lying during a campaign as not only acceptable but expected. Please don't stop questioning the "facts" the city and it's leaders use to accomplish their goals.

As far as the trails go, for the mayor to use terms like "virtually complete" and others that weren't true, was a calculated risk that the general public wouldn't do their homework and instead would take him at his word. It appears they were right. How many would have cared if presented the real numbers? Probably not many, but it shows the lengths they were willing to go to, to make sure. I noticed no one wants to address former CM Bowns remarks. Interesting what one says when free from the constraints of worrying about losing your employment. I guess it's true that the truth sets you free.

For those of us that deal with these city leaders on a regular basis, and know that honesty isn't much of a concern for them, this comes as no suprise. This forum has enough nose-ringed cheerleaders for the city leaders and their tactics. I don't think a couple of inquisitive watchdogs is too much to ask. You're very good at digging through the crap and coming up with the numbers, quotes and mis-statements. Don't stop.

Yes, and keep reporting only those things that APPEAR to support your already determined agenda to demonize all government and all public servants. Keep taking things out of context and parsing so that your personal point is achieved. It is the only thing that matters.

It has become sport to undermine all government regardless of the demands we put on it. That isn't accountability, it is misrepresentation.

So are you saying that the claims made by the mayor about the trails was accurate or not? Since that is the topic of this thread maybe you could stick to that and not ramble off on a "what a bargain MAPS was" speech. It's a pretty simple topic. Not at all as nuanced or paradoxical as you want us to believe. Either you expect accountability and honesty from your government or you don't. I personally don't like being lied to, but to each his own.

Good thing MAPS3 didn't incldue millions for Public Safety, we wouldn't have this thread to argue.

Your comment about getting fired is ironic in that I believe that the accepted bid on the arena actually came in substantially under projection due to the fact that a large part of the cost was left out of the bid by the contractor - who to their credit honored the bid (and later fired the estimator).

Interesting you bring that up. You are correct the bid for the arena came in about $10M lower than what the current budget for it.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19990407/ai_n10127905/
Council launches $64.8 million arena (Journal Record, 4/7/99)

Out of the five contractors that submitted bids on March 11, Flintco had the lowest at a bid of $64.8 million. The bid was $10 million lower than the city's allotted budget for the project, the single most expensive public works project in the city's history.
The Council was thrilled of course (especially with all the other projects that had significant cost over runs). And yes, when the mistake was discovered they SAID they would stand by their bid, but did they? The bid was for $64.8M, final cost of $87.7M They exceeded that bid by $22.9M



How about giving them credit also when prices go down...like they have in the last two years. If you are going to criticize and accuse about unexpected increases, then praise for unexpected savings...otherwise it is just hypocritical sniping.

No "hypocritical sniping" here. I have given both sides when they happen. Problem w/MAPS was, not a single project came in under budget. Not one. So hard to talk about it when it didn't happen.

You have obviously missed the posts on other projects where I did indeed give them credit when things come in under budget. I hope we end up with the equivalent of 8 Practice Facilities w/MAPS 3.

The Ford tax was expected to raise $120M. If we didn't have a team signed by a certain date, the Practice Facility would be scrapped and the tax shortened down from 15 to down to 12 months. So, $24M was budgeted for the Practice Facility.

The bid on the PF came in at $10M, well below the $24M budget. Unlike the original under bid on the Arena, the low bid on the PF was similar to others so hopefully it wasn't a mistake. Yet the cost (for what ever reason) has risen to $14.5M. $4.5M above the bid amount but still $19.5M below the budgeted amount. So its all good.

Yes, and keep reporting only those things that APPEAR to support your already determined agenda to demonize all government and all public servants. Keep taking things out of context and parsing so that your personal point is achieved. It is the only thing that matters.

It has become sport to undermine all government regardless of the demands we put on it. That isn't accountability, it is misrepresentation.

This may have been directed at the post immediately before yours but if it was directed at me, I take offense.

Please point to a post where I took something out of context. I give the quote and the article name/date and link whenever I have it available so you can read the whole thing yourself. If you are requiring that every post give the unabridged history (with all of the ups/downs), that simply isn't going to happen. Some say my posts are too long as it is. If that is what you are requiring of others, please follow the same rules yourself.

It appears you are making the baseless accusations of misrepresentation and the like here just because someone doesn't agree with your viewpoint. Dispute the information. Provide your own quotes and links to present the other side you claim I am not giving.

Aren't you doing the same thing you are accusing others of? Only presenting the rosy, government/elected leaders are all saints that would never do anything misleading, underhanded or **gasp** even illegal, the State, County and City historical FACT is replete with numerous examples that prove otherwise.

http://www.okgazette.com/article/09-01-2010/The_MAPS_3_trails_addition_doesn_t_quite_add_up.as px

This didn't seem to be in response directly to any issues that were brought up during the meeting, but may have missed what brought on this statement by Larry McAtee:
Council meeting 6/14/11

"The commitment was NEVER made to finish the Trails Master Plan. Never made. It was to move it in that direction. So the amount of Trails that were going to go in the money was to be spent implementing as much of the Trails Master Plan as could be."
Now if he meant that the Council never voted on any resolution making that commitment, he may be correct. However during the campaign, the commitment was made by the Mayor and the head of the Parks department. It was stated numerous times that the Trails element in MAPS 3, would indeed "finish the Trails Master Plan".

Here are some of the quotes where the "commitment" was made:

Commitment made by the City:
Still on the City's site: http://www.okc.gov/maps3/summary.html (Summary of MAPS Projects)

Description: This project will construct 57 new miles of bicycling and walking trails, all but completing Oklahoma City’s trails master plan.


Commitment made by the Mayor and & Parks & Recreation Director:
Mayor's Magazine (replay date 11/7/09)
RE: the MAPS 3 Trails Component discussion with Mayor Cornett and Parks & Recreation Director, Wendel Whisenhunt (not a complete transcript, just the relevant parts).

Mayor: "We have been putting forth this wonderful Trail Plan for years, but in MAPS we have the opportunity to really complete what we envision as being a totally comprehensive trail system for people who love to run or like to bike and they can go throughout the entire City area."

Whisenhunt: "We have had a Trails Master Plan for years and we have been working to complete that but we are just getting to the point where we don't have the resources to complete it. But we will have with this proposal ... What is exciting about this proposal is of course that it helps us to get really close to completing the Master Plan ... We are really excited that we can see the Trails Master Plan all but completed with this proposal."

Mayor: "The Trail System, in its entirety, how many miles throughout Oklahoma City?"

Whisenhunt: "Well, we have about 60 plus 80 that are soon to be on the ground. Our Trails Plan is about 200...200 plus. We will add 50 more plus with this proposal so we are getting pretty close to completing that plan."

Mayor: "So with passage of MAPS, in the 10 year span it will take to totally build out what is in the project, we will see 200 miles of bicycle trails."

Commitment made by the Chamber folks running the campaign
From Yes for MAPS website (10/20/09)

The trails component of the proposal will complete a series of biking / walking / running / rollerblading trail loops throughout Oklahoma City, creating one of the longest and most impressive trail systems in the country. Over 50 miles of new trails will be added, and will create connections that give access to major destinations like the Oklahoma River, Lake Hefner, Lake Overholser, Lake Stanley Draper and other points of interest.

Then there were the various media reporting where the reporter restated all of the above commitments. But I won't bother to list them again.


Commitment again made by Mayor Cornett
From the MAPS 3 Announcement Press Conference (Sept 2009)

"We have a Master Bicycle Trail Plan and we have been implementing that slowly through the years. We felt though that at the current rate of funding it was going be a couple of decades before we finished it and that was not acceptable. In our effort to be a more healthy community and to prioritize people getting out and exercising we have decided to place $40 million for the Master Trail Plan into MAPS 3. This will fundamentally complete the Master Trail package we have been working on for over 10 years and would have been working on for another two decades had it not been placed into MAPS 3."

Even after the vote, the Mayor stuck to his story on making the commitment...

The MAPS 3 trails addition doesn't quite add up (Gazette, 9/2/10)

Cornett said it was just more than a year ago when he asked city staff how much it would cost if they wanted to finish the trails master plan.

"It was a priority of mine to finish the trails master plan," he said. "It took staff by surprise. (The trails master plan) was never updated."

What came back to Cornett was that 57 miles would "substantially complete" the plan, he said.